tv [untitled] August 7, 2012 12:30pm-1:00pm PDT
i tried twice to get him to do it. that was another successful bar owner. i went to the guys that own rebel asking them to consider the eagle. the contention, he was not trying to discriminate against gay people. he was trying to get a day operator. [tone!] supervisor elsbernd: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i appreciated you spell that out for us. did you give public notice to everyone within 500 feet of the building? >> yes, we did. supervisor kim: when was that done? >> i was not involved, but i spoke with the licensing rep. assured me posting had been done. -- she assured me the posting had been done. she had the affidavit of mailing.
the only thing she was not lacking was the pcn determination. it was done sometime in 2011. supervisor kim: to get a better sense of the time line, you initiated the transfer in august of last year? >> if you like, i can go get it. there was quite a bit of consternation in the community and press. i believe louis april-may of 2011. sometime after that, there was the issue of keeping it closed too long and losing your non- conforming status. it was thought the owner would put -- find a liquor license, put it back on the premise sought least have a license intact on the premise and then work out a deal with alex and mike. that went on through the fall. that was still going on as late as april and may of this year. i came in in may. there was another attorney who
had been doing the leasing. they did bring me in to sit in on the final negotiations. that was a done deal. i was surprised it had blown up. that is when i went to gus and other day operators and hoping we could bring in someone from the community to put that to rest. the issue before the board today is a public need and convenience of the entire community in the city and county of san francisco. it is not just one little segment. i think it is a dangerous precedent for the board to be getting into the minutia of lease negotiations. i think it was done in good faith. i think these guys are amazing in with a beautiful job. supervisor kim: that was not my question. i appreciate that. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: one of the
other gentleman in the partnership behind a proposal indicated you do not have to be gay to have a license approved. i do not think anyone is saying the decision should be based on sexual orientation. there are many gay or straight individuals who could take over the license. the question is the sensibility they have to the larger community and issues that are relevant in the code. one of the things that is concerning for me is the fact we have had a number of people during public comment and even in correspondence, people that have made a serious allegation about the landlord in terms of his willingness to negotiate in good faith with the lgbt community. that is a very serious allegation. it is one that i think we have
to make sure we are fair and do not jump to conclusions. i do think it is something we have to look at. if it is the case that by virtue of being gay potential owners or people who would run the establishment were denied the ability to compete in good faith, i think that is relevant for consideration. i am wondering if you can address that issue. second, i believe to the extent those allegations have been made, they were even said in public comment. i personally would like to hear directly from the owner. i think it is appropriate for the honor to come to this body and specifically address that issue. i am wondering if you can address the issue raised, the possible discrimination, and is
there a willingness on the part of the property owner to come to this body and address this committee and the community? >> i believe he will. he did do a lot of outrage. i believe he was beat up pretty bad in april and may of last year and got a little gun shy. i have read all of the reports. i did put in the record today a blog dated april 29 of 2011. this is the true story of what happened. it shows the previous owner of the eagles ran it into the ground, refused to negotiate in good faith with the dallas eagle person. he ran it into the ground. he did not want to compete. he brought in the skylark
lounge. it was not my client. my client was painted with a broad brush of anti-gay. i believe that was a ruse to get the community riled up. please look at that document. you have been given that document. that is from the same vehicle as of april of 2011. the eagle is gone. -- that is from the save the eagle as of april 2011. the eagle is gone. anything of value was stripped out. holes were put in the wall. a $600,000 rehab is needed. that is part of the trouble. they do not have the money for the rehab. my group did not have the financial wherewithal to rebuild this place and do the life safety upgrades. we're talking life safety and
ada. this group is extremely successful in various ventures. they want to preserve the eagle. i have lived in the neighborhood since 1974. i do not want to see this place they can forever. i do not want to seconde is built there. -- i do not want to see this place stay they can forever. i do not want to see another solution that could not work. this trust has not had income. two years. we were getting hate from the abc. we let it slide to see if we could, everybody down -- calm everybody down and find a good operator, hopefully a gay operator. i got pressure from the abc to get it done. that is why we're here today. under the 2358, there is a time frame on this aspect under the
state code. there is precedent over city code. we're trying to do what was required by the abc. we want to reach out to the community. obviously he would not have an even amount of people for and against because there had not been outrage. they would not be here today. supervisor campos: is the owner willing to come and appear before the committee? but my client is not here. he is involved in some other things up state. i will speak to him and asked him. but we will not agree to a continuance just because of the time constraints and abc telling us to get this done. supervisor campos: you talked about the business and professions code 2358, that section also says in the context of reviewing this kind of application, the government must investigate all matters connected with the applications
that affect public welfare and morals. i think the issues raised in terms of interaction between this property owner and the lgbt community are relevant and should be considered by this body. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. supervisor olague: . supervisor olague: we have a liquor license transfer before us. there was a lot of information we did not have. it can wait. supervisor elsbernd: is there any additional public comment? yes, ma'am. if you want to make public comment, come on up and state your name. you have two minutes. >> my name is colleen. was the agent and negotiated some of the deals between john
and some of the people that wished to purchase it. there were people from all walks of life. john was dealing with mike and alex the last year-and-a-half. i came on at the beginning of that negotiation. the biggest problem was that both of them were not using an agent. they were negotiating between each other. i was a consultant for mike and alex to help them come up with ideas and to make a deal between the two of them. as time went on, they got nowhere. they kept fighting back and forth. the big issue was the amount of money it would cost to refurbish the eagle because it was trashed. the people that had been there before, they sucked the liver out of the building. it was collapsing. about a year into it, starting
last march, january or february, john nicotopolis called me and said he would like to do a deal with these guys. i put them both together. we had two meetings. we had come to a purchase agreement and lease terms. [tone!] supervisor elsbernd: that means you have 30 seconds. >> we had come to lease terms. they started to go back and forth on arguing final bits of the lease. they got very angry with each other on both sides. there was a lot of fighting. no decision was ever come to as far as signing any agreement with mike and alex. [tone!] at the very last minute -- supervisor elsbernd: thank you.
supervisor campos: what is your role with respect to the current bill before us? >> after this, i started working with john and the gentleman that came in and wanted to purchase the eagle. the criteria, the only thing different on the offers is that they were willing to do the money it took to put the condition of the building back into shape. that was terms of a long of any negotiations going on with anybody trying to purchase it. the gentleman spoke earlier that said that was the terms for his client and it was too prohibitive for his client to come to those terms. that is what he was asking for all along during all of the negotiations. supervisor campos: were you representing the two different sets of parties negotiating with
the property owner? >> not at the same time. i was representing the first group that asked me a year-and- a-half ago to get a hold of the owner. i had a hard time reaching him. that is when they went and contacted him. he was talking directly with them. i was a consultant in the background working with them to make a deal with john. that deal fell through. that deal fell through because they did not want to do the agreement the way john wanted it. what happened was they signed the agreement, probably between the time the agreement was given to sign and for john to sign and when it actually got signed, it was somewhere between six weeks and one month. maybe even longer. the they were still arguing about terms and conditions. john said that is it. i am not going to negotiate with
them anymore. i am done. he went off and started talking to other people. supervisor campos: i have never heard of something like this where someone represents one party and then turns around and represents the other party. that is interesting. >> i did not say that. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. is there any further public comment? see none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any comments? supervisor olague? supervisor olague: i do not think we need to continue this item any longer. we can vote today on whether to deny the license or not, right? i do not see the point in continuing the item. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i was going to ask the we continue the item. i do not think there. outreach was done. -- i do not think community outreach was done. normally when we get liquor
license transfers in neighborhoods -- i understand this is for the public necessity and convenience of the city. with any neighborhood bar, they always do outreach in the neighborhood and community. i usually get letters of support from neighbors that we do not know, folks that live in the neighborhood in terms of the hour each plan and what the actual business plan is. i have not gotten a firm sense of that in this hearing either. no sense of what security will look like. no sense of how they will make sure the neighborhood is safer, issues of lighting, floor plans. these are things are a regular -- i regularly ask and and provided with an offense of the hearing. none of those things are things i saw today. i think a lot has not occurred. this is not an issue of whether the owners have to be lgbt or not. i am not quite sure why that
is to continually came up from those supporting this. i have always felt very welcome at the eagle. to imply a new ownership would be more open than the eagle, i have always felt very welcome there in an lgbt establishment. there is diversity in the lgbt community that was blown over in this conversation. there's a difference between badlands and the eagle versus the cafe. there is diversity in the lgbt committee that has to be acknowledged as well. that is not with the liquor license transfers about today, for me. for me as a neighborhood supervisor, i need to see that outreach has been done. i need to see support in the neighborhood. this is not market street where less out reach needs to happen because it is a more commercial district.
i think this is very much a neighborhood. there is definitely residential in this area. there are also a number of small businesses in the area that could have outreach with them. for that reason, i was going to motion to continue. i am more than happy to give a list of folks that the applicant can do out reach with, whether it is the western soma task force. there are many groups that have a stake in the neighborhood and what it wants to look like. that is a fairly common process with any businesses that come in, even those not applying for a liquor license. even tech companies and other small businesses typically do a lot of outreach and spend time getting to know the committee they are moving into to get to know the history. included in the plan to present before the board, whether it is a commitment to doing the beer bash on sundays, i heard the loesser's -- lessors not willing
to commit to that. i think a lot can be done to honor the legacy of the business. there is a lot of explanation that needs to be done in terms of how this will serve the neighborhood and a lot of other questions i havethose sorts of . the last thing i will say is folks that came out in support said if we do not allow this to come forward, the site will be vacant. if it was on the board of supervisors to enter this becomes occupied. from the past year-and-a-half, it has been the lamb board that has been refusing to occupy the site, not the board of supervisors. we've encouraged them to reach out to a number of different parties. the previous set of negotiating parties had come to us back in march and april, hoping to open the venue in two weeks after they met with us. i was the one that caution them
to make sure they went to the process of meeting with the neighborhood and three the work, that we cannot just rushed opening. they were very ready to open the space months ago. i think that needed to be said. i do have some questions from the upgrade from license 471248. i am not as familiar with the process, so that is why i would like to have the motion continued. i am surprised to compare $100 and change the license. there is a big difference between a restaurant license that serves food, wine, and beer, and a license but serves liquor, and it is really a bar license. from my understanding, we have to take considerations of number of 47 and 48 that are in san francisco to make sure there is not a saturation of either one or the other and that of a proper mix. i do have a number of questions.
hopefully we will be able to answer that. i do expect a lot more community are reach before we're able to do the transfer. that would be my motion. >> the next meeting of september 10 at 10:00. a motion to continue to september 10? >supervisor kim: i was for a demotion to continue it. i know the chair is not here today. supervisor wiener: my recommendation would be to make it september 10 so it is on calendar. i think that would provide about five weeks, and the time in which a lot of information can be gathered. supervisor kim: i am happy to make that motion, monday, september 10. supervisor olague: i would
rather there are plenty of argus that have been made to deny the license transfer. if folks are more inclined to continue it, that is fine. i think there has been plenty of time to do outreach and do the things that supervisor kim mentioned. i am ready to deny the transfer today, but i will respect whatever the rest of the committee chooses to do. i think a lot of the issues that came up in the purview of the license, i think the eagle has been a community space for people of the community, and i think it goes outside of everyone is welcome. i think that people still leave places where they can be who they are did experience -- meet
people who have similar interests, who share a similar life style. i think most people -- i talked to a lot of people who are straight and part of other orientation to feel very welcome at the eagles, but i think what we're talking about is preservation of a culture within san francisco that a lot of people are feeling that we're losing our culture here in san francisco. there is even a lot of gender vacatification in the clear use. this is the issue that goes into other areas. and know there have been conversation started about the preservation or creation of leather districts based of cultural significance, filipino areas in the south of market
based on that also. in japan town we have struggled for how to do that legislatively. i think that as part of a bigger discussion of how you keep -- there is a part of some of us that feel like we're losing some of the culture in san francisco. i think the eagle has always been symbolic. every time i looked up at the condos, it is kind of pathetic here again so i am getting myself, and that is fine. so i think it is the bigger conversation that is really not appropriate in the transfer of a liquor license, but i think that is why people are so passionate about this issue, because people do not want to lose another
culture abase. base. we have lost a lot in the past wttwo decades. people want to continue it, that the school. i'm happy to, but i do not support continuing it, i would rather deny licensing. supervisor campos: thank you. i want to thank the members of the public that have come out to. let me just make it clear that for me, this issue is not about questioning the commitment, sincerity and integrity of the people that are moving forward with this license an application. i have no reason to doubt the comments and commitments that have been made and the sincerity with which it comes. and it is not about the sexual
orientation of whoever takes over the establishment is, but really about whether or not whoever takes over is going to work with the community as hole in a way that meets the objectives of with the codes that are relevant here lay out. at the end of the day we have to decide whether or not the transfer will serve the public convenience or necessity. the way in which this matter has come before us, i think it is very incomplete. the resolution is written from the context of transferring a type 48 license. i know we had representations that there was an upgrade at some point. i do not know legally went to the -- when the upgrade becomes effective, and the fact that we do not have someone from abc to tell us if the upgrade happens
when the request is made, when the money is paid, or does it happen when this body at the board of supervisor box? i do not note legally what the right description would be, so i do not know that we delete an upgrade has been made from a 47 license. i also think once you have a transfer implicated, that there were other policy issues that have to come into play. is it in the convenience and necessity of the city to allow 47 licenses that are very limited in scope in terms of what it is used for to be transferred into a 48 license, and what is the code for local law and business and professions to other state law? that is applicable here. what did they say about the
transfer? i think there are a number of questions. i think because of the questions, i think there is another on record for this body to conclude that the applicant has not met the legal threshold of demonstrating that it is public convenience and necessity to approve this. i do think as a lawyer based on this record alone there is every reason and a free basis to deny the license. that said, i think that we have to get a lot of difference to supervisor kim and i want to acknowledge her and her staff, because they have truly gone out of their way to make sure this is handled in a manner that is fair to everyone involved, and as a district supervisor, i am amazed and shocked that the supervisor's office has not
really been approached a and engaged in the way that you would expect someone to do that. quite frankly, it does not bode well in terms of what it says about the commission -- about the commitment to the players of the future of the establishment. to the extent that we're having people here who have themselves acknowledged the process of our reatreach has been inadequate, t at the same time to say we want you to approve the license today without recognizing there might be of benefit to continuing this matter, the that they're willing to say we have not done everything we need to do and acknowledge that, but we still want you to act today, that also does not bode well for the commitment, because even if we choose to have the license
transfer, i did not know, that you are not going to even acknowledge the need to take the time to engage the community before action is taken here is really troubling to me. i also have to say that i personally, given the questions that have been raised about the way in which the owner of the property has engaged with the community, i personally think it is important for me to hear directly from the owner, and i believe it is appropriate for this body to say if you want the board of supervisors to approve anything, it is appropriate that we're betting the proposal, but we hear directly from you. that if he really wants the proposal, he will come and speak to us directly. i am not prepared to move on anything until and unless that happens.